R.B.Misra, J. - (1.) -Heard Sri R. B. Singhal and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent U. P. Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., and for other respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the reversion order dated 11.7.2001 passed by Deputy General Manager, Parichha THErmal Project Jhansi/Manager of U. P. Electricity Board Inter College, Parichha, Jhansi (in short called the 'College') and the recovery of excess payment from his salary, with further prayer for issuance of mandamus to the authorities to produce the order dated 2.6.2001 passed by the General Manager, Parichha THErmal Power Project, Jhansi and not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as a Lecturer in Mathematics in the above 'College'. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the father of the petitioner while working with the respondents died on 25.1.1997, thereafter by virtue of possessing the degree of M.Sc. (Mathematics) and B.Ed. the petitioner submitted an application on 4.2.1997 for appointment to the post of lecturer on compassionate ground. The Chief Engineer, Agra Division forwarded the application of the petitioner on 16.7.1997 to the Chief Engineer of the U. P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow. Consequent upon, later one recommended to the General Manager of a project e.g. Parichha Thermal Project under U. P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam (in short called 'Nigam') on 21.8.1997 for appointment of petitioner. In reference to the letter dated 9.12.1997 of General Manager an appointment order dated 24.2.1998 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) was issued to the post of 'Lecturer' in the scale of Rs. 1,650-2,160 and in compliance thereto the petitioner joined the service. The Chief Engineer in his letter dated 21.7.1998 later on indicated that the initial appointment of the petitioner to the post of lecturer was not in consonance to the prevailing norms of 'Nigam', therefore, an order of reversion and recovery of excess amount was passed on 11.7.2001 reverting the petitioner to the post of 'Assistant Teacher' in L.T. grade in the pay scale of Rs. 1,350-40-1,550-50-1,800-60-2,160 (now revised pay scale Rs. 4,500-125-7,500). According to the petitioner by virtue of his initial appointment made on compassionate ground he had worked for about three and half years, i.e., from 27.2.1998 to 19.7.2001 to the post of 'Lecturer' before the reversion order in question was passed.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, after the death of his father on 21.5.1997 in reference to the application dated 4.2.1997 for appointment on compassionate ground the entire process of appointment in respect of the petitioner under U. P. State Electricity Board Recruitment of Dependents of Board's Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1975 (hereinafter in short called as 'Rules, 1975'), as amended from time to time, was made to the post of 'Lecturer', which is equivalent to the pay scale of Junior Engineer, i.e., Rs. 1,650-2,160. Such appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was of permanent nature in view of the decision of this Court (D. B.) in Yogendra Ram Chaurasiya v. State of U. P. and others, 2002 (5) AWC 3708 (Para 9), whereupon the petitioner joined his service on 27.2.1998. ACCORDING to the petitioner, entire recruitment process of the appointment was completed upto 9.12.1997, however, with some delay the appointment order was issued on 24.2.1998, therefore, the U. P. State Electricity Board Recruitment of Dependents of Board's Servants Dying-in-harness (4th Amendment) Regulations, 1998 (hereinafter in short called as 'Regulations, 1998'), which came into effect on 22.1.1998, for deployment of the dependents of the employees working under the Board and died-in-harness after implementation of 'Regulations, 1998, was not to be applicable, therefore, without issuing any show cause notice or charge-sheet or without affording any opportunity of hearing in derogation to the principle of natural justice and in disregard to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution by merely issuing a letter of information dated 22.11.2000 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) and making ex parte inquiry behind the back of the petitioner without associating him and allowing the petitioner to participate in the inquiry reversion order is illegal and bad in law and is in violation to the principle of natural justice as provided in Yogendra Ram Chaurasiya (supra) and the impugned order of reversion in question is unsustainable in law for not supplying copy of the inquiry report and other relevant papers to the petitioner, which were basis of passing the impugned order, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, JT 1993 (6) SC 1. In Yogendra Ram Chaurasiya (supra) this Court has held as below : "Any appointment made under the provisions of Dying-in-Harness Rules is to be treated as a permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment. This is also clear from the Government order dated 23.1.1976 filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition wherein it has been mentioned that the dependent of deceased employee appointed on compassionate ground under the provisions of Dying-in-Harness Rules should not be retrenched even where the strength of the employee is being reduced. Thus, the appointment of the applicant-writ petitioner is to be treated as permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment. The nature of appointment, will not affect the writ petitioner, even if the appellant-writ petitioner has accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment which mentioned as a temporary appointment. The nature of appointment of the appellant-writ petitioner having been held to be permanent appointment, the appellant-writ petitioner is entitled to the constitutional safeguards as provided in Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the procedure laid down in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, has not been followed before terminating the services of the appellant-writ petitioner, inasmuch as neither the appellant had been informed about the charges levelled against him noj any enquiry was conducted before terminating his services nor he was given opportunity of hearing nor the authorities have invoked any of the clauses mentioned in provision to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India for dispensing with the requirement of holding the enquiry." For convenience Rule 3 of 'Rules, 1975', which came into effect from 20.6.1974, is reproduced as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...;